Ok... So this got me wondering about the Orthodox teaching on the lineage of Cain. Do we have any Holy Fathers that had opinions on this?

I understand that there are a few Talmudic Orthodox Jewish Rabbis that teach that Cain's line ended and that it was the Neanderthal line.

And if there are patristic opinions on this, in light of this cloning technology and being on the cusp of man re-creating hybrid Neanderthals, what are the spiritual or societal ramifications we can digest from it?

interesting topic simplygermain, I got nothing of use to you on this subject, although I am interested to know why those Rabbis teach that, It seems to me if anyone should be implicated as of being descendant of Cain it should be the Homo sapien. also funny how the guy's name who is thinking of doing the cloning is Church. lol

Logged

To God be the Glory in all things! Amen!

Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but truly will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but really be found to be one. St.Ignatius of Antioch.Epistle to the Romans.

I don't think that we can ever know whether the line of Cain was the neanderthal man. I don't even know what the neanderthal man is, regardless of what science says. Not saying it's not true, but since I can't verify it for myself and I see a lot of errors that science makes, I am very skeptical.

Cloning is definitely not something humans should do, in any case. It's against human nature and degrades the value of life.

Dr. Church has stated that RT and Der Speigel mistranslated his intent. "I’m certainly not advocating it,” Church said. “I’m saying, if it is technically possible someday, we need to start talking about it today.”http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/harvard_professor_blasts_neanderthal_clone_baby_rumor_web

Dr. Church has stated that RT and Der Speigel mistranslated his intent. "I’m certainly not advocating it,” Church said. “I’m saying, if it is technically possible someday, we need to start talking about it today.”http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/01/harvard_professor_blasts_neanderthal_clone_baby_rumor_web

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.

Of course, Science says we evolved from..... that evolved from.... that evolved from......DNA.... There can be many similarities between many living things.

Science has also a "belief", that they pass as a "theory", such as the big bang, and again, evolution. These things conflict with our scriptures and belief systems

Neanderthals would fit the bill. With the horrible errors in carbon dating, to the plausibility of vitamins, calcium levels, and diet affecting the appearance of them, I have to doubt Science claims. We have been taught from early on in school about DNA, evolution, etc., and we accept it as fact. But they really do throw out some wild ones, and often.

With evolution in mind, they classify things in categories. They put the man formed in God's image and group them with other animals.

There's a part of me that is very intrigued by this, but how does one create a life we can't reasonably guarantee the viability of just for the purpose of experimentation. Not that we can guarantee the viability of any conception but from what I've read the chance of an initial success here would significantly less.

I would also bet if they really were dong it they would have no trouble finding a surrogate.

Logged

Psalm 37:23 The Lord guides a man safely in the way he should go.

Prov. 3: 5-6 Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths.

I will definitely watch the video tomorrow. Meanwhile I can't help but think that I haven't ever come across anything orthodox that truly negates Neanderthals as being human. As I understand it Neanderthals are simply a section of humanity that could not adapt any further. This sounds like microevolution not macroevolution.

It it possible that this is the pre-flood human? Is it possible that this is the corrupt humanity makes with a sign by God, not able to procreate with the new male humans that had adapted? So many questions.

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.

Can "The Homo genus" be defined with reference to some non-arbitary, objective reality?

Can "The Homo genus" be defined with reference to some non-arbitary, objective reality?

Yup - the very objective and non-arbitrary fossil record.

The non-homogenous Homo genus shrank to a single species (ours) ages ago.

Not long ago, I've seen an experiment a scientist did with a bunch of amateur creationist enthusiasts: he gave them a pile of primate skulls all originating from different strata excavated from the same valley in Africa. Interestingly, each of them was able to arrange them in roughly the correct chronological order, but they had difficulty in establishing which ones were human and which weren't, because they all looked so very much alike and yet belonged to different species. DNA analysis can pretty much tell them apart - with a high degree of accuracy.

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.

Of course, Science says we evolved from..... that evolved from.... that evolved from......DNA.... There can be many similarities between many living things.

Science has also a "belief", that they pass as a "theory", such as the big bang, and again, evolution. These things conflict with our scriptures and belief systems

Neanderthals would fit the bill. With the horrible errors in carbon dating, to the plausibility of vitamins, calcium levels, and diet affecting the appearance of them, I have to doubt Science claims. We have been taught from early on in school about DNA, evolution, etc., and we accept it as fact. But they really do throw out some wild ones, and often.

With evolution in mind, they classify things in categories. They put the man formed in God's image and group them with other animals.

Howe exactly does DNA conflict with scriptures?

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

The scientific definition of "human" (let's say, those organism of the genus Homo) need not correspond to the Christian definition of "human" (which might include intelligent life-forms on a planet orbiting Sirius).

If we clone Neanderthals and it turns out Neanderthals lack that "breath-of-God" given to Adam, then that would be interesting to know.

« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 12:54:18 PM by Jetavan »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Can "The Homo genus" be defined with reference to some non-arbitary, objective reality?

Yup - the very objective and non-arbitrary fossil record.

The non-homogenous Homo genus shrank to a single species (ours) ages ago.

Not long ago, I've seen an experiment a scientist did with a bunch of amateur creationist enthusiasts: he gave them a pile of primate skulls all originating from different strata excavated from the same valley in Africa. Interestingly, each of them was able to arrange them in roughly the correct chronological order, but they had difficulty in establishing which ones were human and which weren't, because they all looked so very much alike and yet belonged to different species. DNA analysis can pretty much tell them apart - with a high degree of accuracy.

First of all: I know rather little about science, so my question was genuine, not rhetorical, just to make that clear.

Second of all: I don't understand how the fossil record specifies a particular level of classification. According to Wikipedia, "Homo is the genus of great apes that includes modern humans and species closely related to them." That's fine, but how close is close enough to get into the same genus vs just the same subfamily? I don't see how that's anything but a taxonomical choice someone made somewhere along the line for ease of classification. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does make it odd that we would base our theological definition of "human" on it.

Second of all: I don't understand how the fossil record specifies a particular level of classification. According to Wikipedia, "Homo is the genus of great apes that includes modern humans and species closely related to them." That's fine, but how close is close enough to get into the same genus vs just the same subfamily? I don't see how that's anything but a taxonomical choice someone made somewhere along the line for ease of classification. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does make it odd that we would base our theological definition of "human" on it.

I found this:

Quote

There are no hard and fast rules that a taxonomist has to follow in deciding what does and what does not belong in a particular genus. This does not mean that there is no common ground among taxonomists in what constitutes a "good" genus. For instance, some rules-of-thumb for delimiting a genus are outlined in Gill.[4] According to these, a genus should fulfill three criteria to be descriptively useful:

monophyly – all descendants of an ancestral taxon are grouped together; reasonable compactness – a genus should not be expanded needlessly; and distinctness – in regards of evolutionarily relevant criteria, i.e. ecology, morphology, or biogeography; note that DNA sequences are a consequence rather than a condition of diverging evolutionary lineages except in cases where they directly inhibit gene flow (e.g. postzygotic barriers).

For instance, the wolf and the dog both belong to the genus Canis. Both species being extant, you can compare them without necessarily looking into their DNA. For the Genus Homo, that's no longer possible. You can only compare fossils and DNA sequences. I should think that's reliable enough, though. Suppose all wolves were gone, one could still look at a wolf's skeleton and compare it to a dog's. They would look pretty similar. Now, if you were to compare their DNA's, you'd see that they are similar, but not quite the same species.

By the way, I have no idea how theology fits into all this. I just have a hunch that classic "creationism" is not an answer, but a naive and dismissive way of ignoring what science actually has to say.

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.

Of course, Science says we evolved from..... that evolved from.... that evolved from......DNA.... There can be many similarities between many living things.

Science has also a "belief", that they pass as a "theory", such as the big bang, and again, evolution. These things conflict with our scriptures and belief systems

Neanderthals would fit the bill. With the horrible errors in carbon dating, to the plausibility of vitamins, calcium levels, and diet affecting the appearance of them, I have to doubt Science claims. We have been taught from early on in school about DNA, evolution, etc., and we accept it as fact. But they really do throw out some wild ones, and often.

With evolution in mind, they classify things in categories. They put the man formed in God's image and group them with other animals.

We are formed in the image of God. Period. We did not evolve. Man was made from the dust in his image. Our rib given to woman. I can't validate Science by bending/contorting our scriptures AND the understanding + interpretation of the scriptures through almost all of Jewish and later Christian history.

Darwin's death was in 1882... Considering his evolution was taught in his lifetime, and for the sake of argument, it was at least 1820 years since the death & resurrection of our God that Christians believed that man was formed in his image and did not evolve.

Really his message didn't catch on much until much much later.

The big bang is arguable, except one has to dismiss Science's inception, and believe that God existed and caused what Science "sees" as a big bang. Science argues that the big bang happened, never crediting God. As a Christian, I don't have an issue thinking Science is just seeing evidence of a "sudden creation".

If Neanderthal man isn't considered a human and cannot participate in the Sacraments, then pretty much all of us are screwed, because science has also shown that EVERY single human OTHER than Black people and some Asians have Neanderthal DNA inside of them. My thoughts are that "humans" are defined by species' which belong to the Homo genus, since the species of the Homo genus are the only species in the history of Earth which appear to have souls.

Of course, Science says we evolved from..... that evolved from.... that evolved from......DNA.... There can be many similarities between many living things.

Science has also a "belief", that they pass as a "theory", such as the big bang, and again, evolution. These things conflict with our scriptures and belief systems

Neanderthals would fit the bill. With the horrible errors in carbon dating, to the plausibility of vitamins, calcium levels, and diet affecting the appearance of them, I have to doubt Science claims. We have been taught from early on in school about DNA, evolution, etc., and we accept it as fact. But they really do throw out some wild ones, and often.

With evolution in mind, they classify things in categories. They put the man formed in God's image and group them with other animals.

Howe exactly does DNA conflict with scriptures?

Read my post again. I said evolution does and the big bang.

You said:

Quote

We have been taught from early on in school about DNA, evolution, etc., and we accept it as fact.

In the way you are putting it, it could very easily come look as if you're questioning the existence of DNA.

Logged

Do not be cast down over the struggle - the Lord loves a brave warrior. The Lord loves the soul that is valiant.

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Second of all: I don't understand how the fossil record specifies a particular level of classification. According to Wikipedia, "Homo is the genus of great apes that includes modern humans and species closely related to them." That's fine, but how close is close enough to get into the same genus vs just the same subfamily? I don't see how that's anything but a taxonomical choice someone made somewhere along the line for ease of classification. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it does make it odd that we would base our theological definition of "human" on it.

I found this:

Quote

There are no hard and fast rules that a taxonomist has to follow in deciding what does and what does not belong in a particular genus. This does not mean that there is no common ground among taxonomists in what constitutes a "good" genus. For instance, some rules-of-thumb for delimiting a genus are outlined in Gill.[4] According to these, a genus should fulfill three criteria to be descriptively useful:

monophyly – all descendants of an ancestral taxon are grouped together; reasonable compactness – a genus should not be expanded needlessly; and distinctness – in regards of evolutionarily relevant criteria, i.e. ecology, morphology, or biogeography; note that DNA sequences are a consequence rather than a condition of diverging evolutionary lineages except in cases where they directly inhibit gene flow (e.g. postzygotic barriers).

For instance, the wolf and the dog both belong to the genus Canis. Both species being extant, you can compare them without necessarily looking into their DNA. For the Genus Homo, that's no longer possible. You can only compare fossils and DNA sequences. I should think that's reliable enough, though. Suppose all wolves were gone, one could still look at a wolf's skeleton and compare it to a dog's. They would look pretty similar. Now, if you were to compare their DNA's, you'd see that they are similar, but not quite the same species.

That's fine, but "genus" is still a fairly artificial classification. The genetic relationships are real, but the fact that you draw the line here and not there as to what's a family, subfamily, and genus is purely arbitrary.

That's fine, but "genus" is still a fairly artificial classification. The genetic relationships are real, but the fact that you draw the line here and not there as to what's a family, subfamily, and genus is purely arbitrary.

All of this is to say that I highly doubt there is a Form of Hominid.

That's like saying one could consider the wolf to be a dog breed, because it's the arbitrary whim of some taxonomist to classify wolves as a different species of the Canis genus. I don't think that goes, though.

It would probably take a clone to convince you... Even then, you might still view it as a curious breed of man or ape.

I can imagine someone insisting that the wolf is but a wild dog who lives in the forest.

That's fine, but "genus" is still a fairly artificial classification. The genetic relationships are real, but the fact that you draw the line here and not there as to what's a family, subfamily, and genus is purely arbitrary.

All of this is to say that I highly doubt there is a Form of Hominid.

That's like saying one could consider the wolf to be a dog breed, because it's the arbitrary whim of some taxonomist to classify wolves as a different species of the Canis genus.

Well, no. I think "a group of animals capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring" is fairly non-arbitrary and defines a species rather well. It's the higher levels that are somewhat arbitrary, insofar as they entail saying "90% genetic similarity is in, 89% is out" (for example).

It would probably take a clone to convince you... Even then, you might still view it as a curious breed of man or ape.

Convince me of what? What I'm disputing is that we can define "human" theologically as "a member of the genus Homo." I don't think a clone of a Neanderthal would convince me of that.

Convince you that hominids are different species in the genus Homo, closely related but different from Homo sapiens, that is to say us.

Theologically this is really a non-issue. It's like creationists trying to figure out whether Heb. min (= 'kind') in Genesis 1 referred to genera, species or breeds of plants and animals, so as to decide whether microevolution occurred or not.

The scientific definition of "human" (let's say, those organism of the genus Homo) need not correspond to the Christian definition of "human" (which might include intelligent life-forms on a planet orbiting Sirius).

If we clone Neanderthals and it turns out Neanderthals lack that "breath-of-God" given to Adam, then that would be interesting to know.

Wouldn't be interesting if you read "Pet Cemetery" when you were a kid. It took me about 15 years to recover from that book.

Neanderthals seem to be simply a subset of Homo Sapiens. One definition of a "species" is the ability for two members of that species to breed and produce fertile offspring, who in turn will be able to create further fertile offspring. Given that the Neanderthals bred into Homo Sapiens on a very large scale, I think we can call Neanderthals just another kind of human. So therefore, it's perfectly conceivable that Neanderthals could have souls and be Christians.

Neanderthals seem to be simply a subset of Homo Sapiens. One definition of a "species" is the ability for two members of that species to breed and produce fertile offspring, who in turn will be able to create further fertile offspring. Given that the Neanderthals bred into Homo Sapiens on a very large scale, I think we can call Neanderthals just another kind of human.

This is completely wrong - genetic research proved that there was no interbreeding between Neanderthals and modern humans. That is to say, no extant human population has inherited any specific Neanderthal genetic traits. If interbreeding occurred (highly unlikely, given that Neanderthals would have looked at least as (un)attractive to our ancestors as their reconstructed portraits look to us), the offspring was obviously not viable.